Those opposed to the Heter Mechirah were well aware that the full observance of Shemittah was impractical at the present time, but took offense at any legal fiction that would "uproot" this mitzvah entirely. They came up with the Otzar Beit Din (storehouse of the Court), a concept already found in the Talmud. However, extensions were made in its implementation, which supporters saw as a reasonable broadening of the concept. Critics saw it as bearing little resemblance to the original, and a much broader legal fiction than Heter Mechirah.
As we have discussed, the original practice of Shemittah was for the fruit to be considered "ownerless", with everyone coming to freely pick enough fruit sufficient for a limited time. One great exception to this was figs, an important staple in the Holy Land and surrounding countries. Fresh figs are delicious, but very delicate and perishable. They were rarely used fresh. They were dried, and pressed into round "bricks" or "wheels" to be used all year until the next crop. If people were to come and pick the figs, they would be crushed, and quickly spoil. The Talmud records a solution. The Court would hire workers who would go to the fig orchard, picking and drying the figs.As the figs belonged to no one,and were acquired by no one, there would be no restrictions on how many were thus harvested. The fruit was then brought to the Court's storehouse, to be freely distributed to the public. The Court was, however, entitled to be compensated for the cost it had expended in hiring the workers. The fruit was not being sold (strictly forbidden under the laws of Shemittah), but the people would pay a service charge compensating the Court for out-of-pocket expenses. In the modern form of Otzar Beit Din, the farmers are hired by the Court to grow and harvest the fruit. An estimate is made as to how much the fruit is worth. The farmer is paid slightly less (one or two percent), in order to indicate that the Court is not BUYING the fruit, but merely paying the farmer's salary. The fruit is brought to a "distribution center". Theoretically, it is given out for free. In practice, the Court charges a fee for its expenses (the hiring of the farmer). The produce is, in fact, cheaper than it would normally be; both because of the lower price payed the farmer, as well as because the usual chain of "middle men" has been circumvented. The supporters of Otsar Beit Din argue that this is an ideal solution. "Ownerless" fruit is being given away. The fee is merely a service charge. The laws of Shemittah have been upheld. The fruit remains sacred. It must be eaten with the holiness and respect required by Shemittah observance. It cannot be exported. (Which does not solve the problem for those farmers dependent on exports). It also leaves unsolved the problem of vegetables. The Land may still not be sown, so only those vegetables planted before Shemittah may be eaten (and even these have certain restrictions). Those who observe Shemittah by means of Otzar Beit Din are still dependent on non-Jewish vegetables for at least part of the year. The opponents of Otzar Beit Din argue that the hiring of farmers and the distribution of the fruit which is still pricey, albeit less than the normal price, is an obvious legal fiction. The sacred fruit is harvested without the usual restrictions of methodology and quantity, because it is "ownerless" and belongs to all the people. The farmer being payed close to his usual income, and the fact that different quality fruit has different prices, despite having the same outlay of money in the harvesting, would seem to belie the idea that we are simply reimbursing the Beit Din for its expenses. (Supporters counter that if the same prices were charged for all qualities, people would only buy the higher quality fruit, thus causing a loss for the Beit Din.) Another issue is that it is difficult to ensure that the fruit will be properly handled. I personally have witnessed Israeli exports, clearly marked "Otzar Beit Din" sold in New York supermarkets, thus violating the prohibition of export, as well as the buying and selling of the Shemittah fruit. Many argue that Otzar Beit Din, even if not ideal, solves the main challenges of Shemittah, while preserving the observance of the mitzvah. Many remain unhappy with both legal fictions, and advocate another alternative. That will be the topic of my next post.